Holding

The tenant Janardhan became the deemed purchaser on 1 April 1957, extinguishing the landlord's title; therefore all subsequent proceedings treating the landlord as owner were void and Section 32F was inapplicable.

Summary

The case concerned a 16‑acre agricultural plot in Ahmednagar where, under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the tenant Janardhan became a "deemed purchaser" on the tiller's day of 1 April 1957. The landlord Tarachand Chopra later died leaving a will in favour of his minor son Ashoklal, whose name was mutated in revenue records. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the Tenancy Aval Karkoon erroneously treated the landlord as still owning the land, postponed the compulsory purchase under Section 32F, and ordered possession to be handed over to the landlord, leading to a void sale to third parties. Subsequent proceedings before the Revenue Tribunal and the High Court held that Janardhan’s ownership was effective from 1957 and that the later orders were void. The Supreme Court affirmed that the landlord’s title was extinguished on the tiller's day, Section 32F did not apply because the landlord was not disabled, and the statements of Janardhan and the respondent could not estop the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the tenant became the deemed purchaser on the tiller's day, extinguishing the landlord's title.
Whether Section 32F of the Act applies to postpone compulsory purchase when the landlord is not a minor, widow or disabled.
Whether the Tribunal and Tenancy Aval Karkoon had jurisdiction to entertain possession proceedings after the tenant became deemed purchaser.
Whether the statements made by Janardhan and the respondent amount to estoppel preventing the respondent from claiming possession.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 14, s. 29, s. 32, s. 32F, s. 32G, s. 32P
Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Subjects

tenancy lawagricultural land reformdeemed purchaserlandlord-tenant relationshipSection 32estoppeljurisdictionnullitycompulsory purchase

Judgment

237

AMRit BHIKAJI KALE & ORS.
A
. v.

KASHINATH JANARDHAN TRADE & ANR.

May 11, 1983
B
(D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]

Bombay-Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 32, scoPe.of-
Legal effects of (i) a will executed by the land-lord in his life time after
the tenant became the "deemed purchaser" and hence the land-owner on J.4.1957
and (ii) the proceedings taken on the basis of the will including mutiJtiOn of c
the name of the legatee, postponement of sales under Sections 32F and 32G,
entertainment of the- suit by the Tenancy Aval Karkoonfiled under Sections 14
and 29 of the Act, the dispossession of the deemed purchaser and the
further sale by the recorded owner.

Estoppel by Conduci-Whether a statement made by a teizant, who has D
becon1ti a deen1ed purchaser under the Act, under the mistake or ignorance of such
a fact, before the Tenancy ·Tribunal, agreeing for the delivery of possession 'amqunt
to estoppel.

Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as
amended from time to time provided that on the lstday of April, 1957 styled as E
the "tiller's day" .every .tenant shall subject ·to other provisions of the next
succeeding sections be deemed to have purchased from his landlord free from
all encum)!rances Subsisting thereon, on the said date the land held by him as
a tenant if other conditions of the section are satisfied. By operation of this
law, one Janardhan, the father of the respondent, became the "deemed pur-
chaser" effective from April 1, 1957, of the land bearing survey No. 1052 and
measuring 16 acres .situated within the revenue limits of village Sonai Taliika F
Nawasa, District Ahmednagar which belonged to Tarachand Chopra.

Subsequent to this admitted fact, several incidents took place which have
led to the present app·eal raising the question of the legal eff~ct of the :several
steps taken by different persons; ignorant of the factum of Janardhan having
tecome the deemed purchaser". They are :-(a) Landlord Tarachand died on G
August 12, 1959, after two and a quarter years after Janardhan became the
statutory purchaser; (ii) Tarachand executed a will, before his death,
bequeathing the suit land to Ash~klal Gugale, a minor; (iii) the revenue
authorities, who must be av.are of the provisions of the Act, wrongly mutated
the name of Ashoklal in the revenue records as the landlord in terms of
the will ; (iv) in spite of the mandatory duty imposed upon the Agricultural H
Lands Tribunal, under Section 32G, to isSue notice to all tenants who
under section 32 are deen1ed to have purchased the lands, all ·landlords
of such lands and all other persons _ interested to appear before:;
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 S.C.R.
..
it for the determination of the price·of the land whiCh is the subject matfer of
A compulsory purchase, strangely accepted the plea for the postponement of tbe.
inquiry under section 32F of the Act and later again commenced the proceed-
ings in the year 1967 and concluded the prOceedingS by its order dated July I~,
1967 repeating the jurisdictional errors; (v) in the interregnum., Ashoklal,
through his next friend commenced proceedings in case No. 36 of 1967 1in the
Court of Tenancy Aval Karkoon for the recovery of the possession; (li) the
Tenancy Aval Karkoon, not only entertained the petition, but also g~t record-
8. ed two statements, on 5.10.1967, from )anardhan, "the deemed purchaser" to
the effect that be had no objection to handing over the possession of the land
to the landlord as he was old and could not cultivate the land personally. and
another froni. the present respondent to the same effect even thougfi in the life
time· of his father Janardhan, he had no title to the land involved in the dis-
pute, ~nd, thereafter made the order dated October 6, 1967 edcting Janardh"an
c from the land; (vii) this wholJy null and void order ·enabled the minor landlord
to sell the land by a registered deed on Noven1ber 13, 1967 tO one Haribhav
and another, the former later transferred his interest in favour of soc1e of the
petitioners before the High Court; (viii) on Octo.ber 6, ·1971, Janardhan moved
the Tribunal under section 32F of the Act to the effect that as the landlord
Ashoklal had attained majority he was entitled to purchase.the land; (ix) the
Tribunal started the proceedings under section 32G and after bringing the
D present respondent on record due to the den1ise of Janardhan on November
29, 1976, went into the 1natter in depth, examined all previous orders and canle
to the conclusion that Janardhan having become the "deemed purchaser'' a11
subsequent proceedings were null and void, which was affirmed by the
Assistant Collector, the Mahcirashtra Revenue. Tribllnal and the High Court
later ; (x) a parallel proceeding initiated by the respondent for the recovery of
posSession was decided in his favour by all Courts including the High Court.
E
Dismissing the appeals by the special leave, the Court

HELD : 1:1 On the tiller's day, the landlord's interest in the land gets
extinguished and simultaneollsly by a statutory sale without anything more
F by the parties, the extinguished title of the landlord is kindled or created in
the "tenant. That very moment landlord-tenant relationship as understood in
common law or Transfer of Property Act comes to an. end, the link and
chain is broken.· The absent noll-cultivating landlord ceases to have that
ownership 'element on the land and the cultivating tenant, the tiller of the soil
becomes the owner thereof. This is unquestionable, the landlord from the
G date of statutory sale is only entitled to recei\'e the pufchase price a.s deter-
mined by the Tribunal under section 32G. In other words, landlord ceases to
be landlord and the tenant becomes the owner of the land' and comes in direct
contact with the ·~tate. Without any act of transfer inter vivos-the title of the
landlord is extinguished and is created simulta~eously i~ !he tenant makin~ the ·
tenant the deemed purchaser. It is an admitted position that on Apnl 1,
H 1957 Tarachand was the landlord and Janardhan was. the tenant Tarac~aiid
landlord was under no disability as envisaged by Section 32F. Therefore on
April I, 1957 Janardhan bccap1c d«111ed purchaser. [244 C-GJ
AMRIT BHIKAJI V. KASHINATH 239

Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay, [1959] Supp, 1 S.C.R.
489 @ 518 followed. · A
1:2. If, in the instant case, Janardhan became the deemed ·Purchaser
on tillers' day, the relationship of landlord and tenant between Tarac~and
and Janardhan came to be extinguished and no right could be claimed either
by Tarachand or anyone claitning through him such as Ashoklal or the
present purchisers on the footing that they are the owners of the land on or
after Aprill, 1957. [244 G-H, 245 A] B

2:1. Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
. 1948, has no aPplication to the facts of the case. Scetion 32F postpo!led tht
date of compulsory pui'chase by t'1e tenant where the landlord is a minor or a
widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability on the tillers' day.
Section 32F has an overriding effect over Section 32 as it opens with a non-
obstante.clause. The combined effect of Section 32F and 32 wouid show that
whCre the landlord is un.;ler no disability as envisaged by section 32F the teti.ant
of iuch litndlord by operation of law would. become the deen1ed purchaser
but where the landlord is of a class or category as set out in section 32F such
as a minor, a widow or a person subj~ct to any mental or physical disability,
the date of compulsory sale would be J?OStponed as t11erein provided. Now, if
Tarachand, the landlord was under no disability and he was alive on April 1, D
1957 and he was the owner, his tenant Janardhan became the deemed
purchaser. [245 A-DJ

2:2. If Janardhan ·became the deen1ed purchaser on April 1, 1957 all
subsequent prOOeedings in which the Tribunal held that the date of purchase
was postponed _because the recorded owner Ashoklal was a 1ninof were wit:tout E
jurisdiction. The Tribunal had absolutely no jurisdiction to proceed on the
footing that that date of sale was postponed. It is neither an incorrect order nor
an~erroneous order as was sought to be made out but Tribunal lacked the
jurisdiction to proCeed under section 32F because when the proceedings under
section 32F were Commenced, Janardhan had long since become the deemed
purChaser. Therefore ·all subsequent proceedings were ab initio void and
without jurisdiction. (245 D-FJ F

2:3. When a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction clutches at a jurisdictiOn
by ignoring a statutory provision and its consequences in law on the status of
parties or by a"decision wholly unwarranted with regard to the jurisdictional
fact, its decision is a nullity ri.nd can be set up in collateral proceeding. The
Tribunal clutched at a jurisdiction not vested in it and in such a situation it can
G
-+ not be disputed that the Tribunal lacked the- jurisdiction to entertain any
proceeding purporting to be between landlord and tenant on the erroneous
assumption that tenant was still a tenant though he ·had long since become the
deemed purchaser, The tenant has ceased to be a tenant much prior to the
orders passe.d by the Tribunal on April 24, 1961 and July 13, 1967 holding that H
the date of compulsory purchase was postponed. The compulsory purchase
by the operation of law had taken place as early as April 1, 1957 and that le~al
pooition .cannot be wished away. [245 F-H, 246-A-BJ
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983j 3 s.c.R.

3:1. When several orders passed by different authorities are wholly null
A and void and hence non est, such orders cannot thwart subsequent proceedings.
The nullity can be set up in. subsequent proceedings. The plea of estoppel by
conduct also cannot be allowed to be raised, since a measure of agra~ian
reform cannot be permitted fo be defeated by such devious means of the
landlords trying to take advantage of any statement made contrary to their
legally protected interest, in the absence of legal literacy aod by such jugglery of
orders of low level revenue officers who hardly knew w.hat they were doing.
B [246 C-H, 247 Gl

3:2. In the instant case, even assumirig Janardhan relinquished his right
as a tenant, even then Ashoklal CtI;nnot recover possession as the land would be
at the disposal of the Collector under Section 32P. Further, the posthaste
steps taken by Ashoklal and others in transferring the lands to several others
C speak of malafides of the landlord. [246 E-Fl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURTSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 174 _of 1981.

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 4th September, 1980 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
D No. 2155 of 1979.

U.R. La/it, C.B. Singh and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.
'
Jitendra Sharma for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .

DESAI, J. Land bearing Survey No. 1052 adme~suring 16 acres
situated within the revenue limits of Village Sonai Taluka Nawasa
Distt. Ahniendnagar, belonged to Tarachand Chopra. Janardhan, the
F father of the respondent was admittedly the tenant of this land on
April I, 1957. Sec ..32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands A:ct, 1948 as amended from time to time provided that on
the 1st day of April, 1957 styled as the tillers' day every tenant shall
subject to other provisions of the section and the provisions of the
G next succeeding sections be deemed to have purchased from his
landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the same·
date the land held by him as a tenant if other conditions of the section +·

,
are satisfied. Thus by operation of law, Janardhan, who was the
tenant of the land on the tillers' day became the deemed purchaser
H thereof.. Landlord Tarachand died on August 12, 1959. Before his
death, landlord Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the
suit land to Ashoklal Gugale who was petitioner No. 5 before the
f[i~h Court Acting upon tlie will of Tarac)lap.\I, Ashoklal ·e;ct bis
AMRJT BHUvvl v. KASHINATH (Desai, J.) 241

name mutated in the revenue record in respect of suit land in his
- favour as owner. On the date of mutation, Ashoklal was a minor. A
Sec. 32-G imposes a statutory duty on the Agricultural l ands
Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) to commence enquiry for determining·
the price of the land which is the subject matter of compulsory
purchase. The Tribunal -is required to issue notice to (a) all tenants
who u/s 32 are deemed to have purchased the lands (b) all landlords
of such lands and (c) all other persons interested therein to appear
B
before it on the date specified in the notice. Pursuant to such .notice
when the parties appeared before the Tribunal it was claimed on
behalf of landlord that Ashoklal, the recorded owner was a minor
and therefore the sale was postponed u/s 32-F. The Tribunal failed to
exercise jurisdiction in not noticing the obvious fact that the relevant c
date on which compulsory sale takes place is April I, 1957 and on
that date Tarachand Chopra the landlord was· the recorded owner
and he was under no disability as envisaged by. sec. 32-F and there-
fore the sale had become effective and could not be postponed u/s
32-F. However, the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by
mis-stating an obvious irrelevant fact that as recorded owner was a
D
minor, compulsory sale was postponed as envisaged by sec. 32-F.
It appears that the Tribunal again commenced proceedings in, the
year J967 u/s 32-G and concluded the proceedings_ by its order dated
July 13, 1967 repeating the jurisdictional errors and thereby failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in it.· In the meantime, minor landlord E
through his next friend co_mmenced proceedings in Case No. 36 of 1967
in the court of Tenancy Aval Karkoon having Jurisdiction in the area
for recovery of possession from tenant Janardhan who bad become a
deemed purchaser, u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act.
Sec. 14 enables the landlord to recover possession if tenant commits
default in payment of rent for certain number of years. The Tenancy F
Aval Karkoon entertained the petition which it had no jurisdiction
because there wa~ no subsisting relationship of . landlord and tenant
between Ashoklal and Janardhan as Janardhan had already become
deemed purc'haser on April I, 1957. However, the Tenancy Aval
Karkoon taking note of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal holding G
that the date of compulsory sale was postponed directed possession
to be handed over to the landlord h6lding that the tenant had
committed defa ult in payment of rent.

H
Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant at this stage pointed
out that in the proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy
Act, thQ te11ant Janard;m had !lla<;ie a statement on October 5, 1967
24:2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 3 s.c.R.

·that he had no nbjection to handing over possession of- the land to
A the land to the landlord as he was old and could not cultivate the
land personally. On the same day, surprisingly the Tenancy A~al
Karkoon also recorded the statement of present respondent that in
the lifetime of his father Janardhan, he had no title to the- land
Involved in the dispute .. It appears that the Tenancy Aval Karkoon
B mad.e the order dated Oct. 6, 1967 evicting Janardhan from the land
ori the footing that he was a tenant liable to pay rent and had com-
mitted defaults. This wholly null and void order enabled the· rinor
Iai:tdlord to sell the land by a registered deed on Nov. 13, 1967 to the
petitioner No. I and one Haribhav and the latter in t11rn transferred
his interest in favour of other petitioners. ·
c
Misled by the two orders of the Tribunal holding that the sale
was postponed Janardhan served a notice on Oct. 6, 1971 as
envisaged by sec. 32-F that as the landlord has attained majority ho
is entitled to. purchase the land and that the price of land be deter•
mined. Presumably, pursuant to this notice, the Tribunal commenced
proceedings under sections 32-G and 32-F of the Tenancy Act for
determining the purchase price. It was contended on. behalf of the
petitioners transferees from Ashoklal before the Tribunal that as
Janardhan has already handed over possetsion to Ashoklal he had no
E subsisting interest in the land and . therefore he had no right to
purchase the land u/s 32-F and that the proceedings be dropped.
This contention found.favour with the Tribunal which overlooked the ·
legal position that Janardhan had become the deemed pur,chaser on
April I, 1957. Janardhan died on November 29, 1976 leaving
respondent his son as the sole heir. After the death of Janardhan an
F enquiry was commenced to ascertain whether Janardhan the d1iceased
tenant had already become the deemed purchaser on April I, 1957
and that- all the subsequent proceedings 'were abinitio void. There
were some proceedings in between u/s 84 which are - hardly relevant.
The Tribunal went into the matter in depth, examined all provious
orders and finally reached an affirmative· conclusion that on April
G
I 1957 Tarachand was the recorded landlord and being under no
' '
disability and Janardhan being tenant ?f the land, by operation of
law Janardhan become the deemed purchaser and all subsequent
pro~eedings were null, void and non est, The Tribunal accordingly
.
H determined the purchase price: The present petitioners after
unsuccessfully appealing to .the Assistant "Collector al)d the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal u/s 76 of the Tenancy Act, rn~ched
11/t High Court und~r Article 227,
Ai.IRIT BHIKAJI v. KASHINATH'(Desai, J.)

A parallel proceeding was initiated by the respondent u/s 84 of
the Tenancy Act for recovery of possession which was illegally 'taken
from him. The Assistant Collector held that occupation of the suit
land by the petitioners was contrary to the provisions of 1aw as
Janardhan had already become the deemed purchaser and no title
could be acquired by the petitioners from the sale , by Ashoklal and .
therefore the respondent is entitled to_ recover possession. The
direction was issued to hand over possession to the respondent.
This order was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
in Revision as per its judgment dated July 16, 1973. Two petitions
were moved by transferee-petitioners in the High 'Court of Bombay
against two orders one ·or the Maharashtra Revenue· Tribunal, in a
proceeding u/s 32-G and another in a proceeding u/s 84 against the• c
present respondent. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by
a common judgment dismissed both the petitions of the petitioners
holding that as Janardhan bad become the deemed purchaser. on the
tillers' day i. e. April I, 1957 all subsequent ·proceedings u/s 32-F-
were a]? initio void and without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of
law. The High Court also held that the petitioners acquired no title D
under the purported sale by Ashoklal because Ashoklal had no title
to the land save receiving the purchase price from Janardhan cir his
heir as determined.u/s 32-G. The High Court accordingly dismissed
both the petitions with costs. Hence these two appeals by special
leave.

Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned counsel appearing for the appeliants
strenuously urged that the orders made by the Tribunal u/s :i2-F and
by the Tenancy Aval Karkoon in a proceeding u/s 14 read with sec.
29 of the Tenancy Act and the statement of ianardhan and the
F
respondent would clearly show that these orders were ai best
erroneous but not void and cannot be ignored as nullity in subsequent
proceedings.

The Tenancy Act was comprehensively amended by Amending G
Act 15of1957. The amendment brought in a revoluti9nary measure
of agrarian reforms making tiller of the soil the owner of the land.
This was done to achieve the object of removing all intermediaries
between tillers of the soil and the State. Sec. 32 provides that by
. mere operation of law, every tenant of agricultural land situated in ·H
the area to which the Act applies shall become by the operation of
law, the owner thereof. He is declared to be a deemed purchaser
Without anythinll more on bis part. A Constitution Benc)l of t!iii
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983) 3 s.t.I\,

Court in Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay(l) held
A that:

"the title of the landlord to the land. passes
· immediately to the tenant on the tillers' day and tht:re is
'a completed purchase or sale thereof as between the
B landlord and the tenant. The title of the land which was
vested originally in the landlord passes to the tenant on
the tillers' day and this title is defeasible only in the event
of the tenant failing to appear or making a statement that
he is not willing to purchase the land or committ default
in payment of the price thereto as determined by the
c . Tribunal."

Therefore, it is unquestionably established that on the tillers' day,
the landlord's interest in the land gets extinguished and simultane-
ously by a statutory sale without anything more by the parties, the
. extinguished title of the landlord is kindled or created in the tenant.
D
That very moment landlord-tenant relationship as under;tood in
common law or Transfer of Property Act· comes to an end. · The link
and chain is broken. The absent non-cultivating landlord ceases to
,have that ownership element of the land and the cultivating tenant,
the tiller of the soil becomes the owner thereof. This is unquestionabl.
E The landlord from the date of statutory sale is only entitled to
receive the purchase price as determined by the Tribunal u/s 32-G.
In other words, the landlord ceases to be· landlord and the tenant
becomes the owner of the land and comes.in direct cqntact with the
State. Without. auy act of transfer inter vivos the title of the landlord ,
is extinguished and is created simultaneously in the tenant making the
F tenant the deemed purchaser. It is an admitted position that on April
I, 1957 Tarachand was the landlord and Janardhan was the
tenant. Tarachand landlord · was under no disability as envisaged by
sec. 32-F . Therefore, on April I, 1957 Janardhan became deemed
purchaser. and Mr. Lalit could not controvert this position.
G
If Janardhan became the deemed purchaser on tillers' day, the
relationship of landlord and tenani between Tarachand and
Janardhan rame to be extingui,hed and no right could be claimed
either by Taracband or anyone claiming through him such as
H . Ashoklal or t4e present purchasers on the footing that they are the

\I) (1959] Suppl. I SCR489 at 518.
AMRIT BHIKAn v. kASiUNATH (Desai, J.) 245
owners of the land on or after April I, I 957. This basic fact is
incontrovertible.
A

It may be mentioned that sec. 32-F [has no applicatfon to
the facts of this case. Section 32-F postponed the date of com-
pulsory purchase by the tenant where the landlord is a minor or
a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disabiiity on B
the tillers' day •. Sec. 32-F has an overriding effect over s. 32 as it
opens with a i\on-obstante clause. The combined effect of sec. 32-F ·
and 32 would show that where. the landlord is under no disability as
envisaged by sec. 32-F the tenant of such landlord by operation of
Jaw would become the deemed purchaser but where the landlord is
of a class or. category as set out in sec. 32-F such as a minor, a c
widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability, the
date of compulsory sale would be postponed as therein provided..
Now, if Tarachand, the landlord was under no disability and he was
alive on April l, 1957 and he was the owner, his tenant Janardhan
became the deemed purchaser. 'This conclusion, in our opinion, is D
unassailable.

If Janardhan became the owner on April 1, 1957 all subsequent
proceedings in which the Tribunal held that the date of purchase was
postponed because the recorded owner Ashoklal was a minor were
without jurisdiction. The Tribunal had absolutely no jurisdiction to E
proceed on the footing that the date of sale was postponed. It is
neither ~n incorrect order nor an erroneous order 'as was sought to
be made out but Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to proceed u/s. 32-F
because when the proceedings u/s. 32-F were commenced, Janardhan
had long since become the deemed purchaser. Therefore all sub-
sequent proceedings were ab initio void and without jurisdiction and F
the High Court was right in holding that orders passed therein were
nullity. •

The attempt to overcome this position by urging that the order
was 6froneous was rightly repelled by the High Court holding that . G
the orders were nnll and void, proceeding on an erroneous assump•
tion of jurisdictional fact that the recorded owner was a minor on
the tillers day. When a Tribunal of limited jurisdicti~n clutches at
_.., a jurisdiction by ignoring a statlltory provision and its consequences
in law on the status of parties or by a decision wholly unwarranted H
with regard to the jurisdictional fact, its decision is a nullity and can
be set up in collateral proceeding. The Tribunal clutched at a
jurisdiction not vested in it and in such a siiuation it cannot be .
246 Sul>REME COURT REPORTS tl983j 3 s.c.i\.
disputed that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any
A. proceeding purporting to be between landlord and tenant on the
erroneous assumption that tenant was still a tenant though he had
long since .become the d.eemed purc~aser. The tenant has ceased to
be a tenant much prior to the !Hders passe.d by the Tribunal on
April 24, 1961 and July 13, 1967 holding that the date of compulsory
purchase,was postponed. The compulsory purchase by the operation
B of law had taken place as early as April I, 1957 and that legal
position cannot be wished away.
Mr. Lalit, however, contended that the statement of Janardhan
in the proceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act stating
that he had become old arid was unable to cultivate the land and he
c is willing to hand over possession would estop the respond•,nt from
contending to the contrary. It was further urged that respondent
himself was present on the date on which ,Janardhan gave his state-
ment on October 5, 1967 and he concurred with the statement of
Janardhan. We are not unaware of the landed gentry exercising
such influence over the tenants that in the absence of legal literacy
D, they may make any statement contrary to their legally protected
interest. A measure 'of agrarian reform cannot be permitted to be
defeated by such devious means of the landlords. However apart
from ignorance of his position assuming that Janardhan relinquished
his right as .tenant, landlord Ashoklal was nontheless not entitled to
E recover possession because, when Janardhan, the deemed purchaser
agreed to hand over possession subject to the provision of sec. 15,
the land would be ·at the disposal of Collector under sec'. 32 P.
Landlord even in such a situation is not entitled to be restored to
possession without bringing his case under sec. 15 which appears
not to be the case of landlord. And look at the.bona fides of
F th~ landlord. Ashoklal, as soon as he managed to obtain wholly
void order for possession, managed to transfer the. lands to
the petitioners within a span of less than 2 weeks. It would thus
appear that even Ashoklal and his next friend must be presum-
ably aware of the void character of the order and therefore posthaste
G with a view to thwarting any further legal proceeding and confuse
Janardhan, Ashoklal through his next friend managed to transfer
the land to the petitioners and iet the pet;tioners fightthe deemed
purchaser. A measure whereby tenant was to be made the owner of,
the land cannot be permitted to be defeated by such jugglery of
H --0rders by low-level revenue officers who hardly knew what they were
doing. Look at the lack of knowledge of law of the TribunaL While
overlooking: the relevant date, and it took into account the subse-
quent date which was wholly irrelevant and impermissible. Though
AMR!T BH!KAJ(v. KASHINATH (Desai, 1.) . 24,

landlord Tarachand had died much after 1.4.1957 in proceeding
'u/s 32-G minor Ashoklal whose name was mutated on death of A
Tarachand, the authority declared the sale having been postponed
even though statute had already operated and sale taken place. Can
a statutory Tribunal charged with a duty tO implement the law betray
such total lack-of knowledge so as tff be counter-productive? Same
is the case with the decision of Tenancy Aval Karkoon. A pro-
B'
ceeding u/s 14 read with sec. 29 of the Tenancy Act, started on the
footing that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted should
have been thrown out at the threshold because a decade back the
then tenant Janardhan had become the deemed purchaser. There-
fore these orders were wholly. null and void and hence non est and
cannot thwart subsequent proceedings. The nullity can be-set up c
in subsequent proceedings. ·

Janardhan was deprived of his possession by an order which
had no legal sanction. He was d<;prived of possession on the footing
that he was a tenant ignoring and overlooking the statutory event D
that he had become the owner. Even when the Legislature passed
such a revolutionary measure its knowledge was not transmitted to
the persons for whose benefit the measure was enacted and there was
no awakening to one's right. Undoubtedly, a communication gap
and for want of legal literacy Janardhan was taken on a joy ride E
and was illegally made to part with possession. Subsequently every-
one realised the blunder committed by them and therefore when the
proceedings started on the notice given by Janardhan, the Tribunal
determined the price. Appeal of the petitioners to Assistant
Collector failed, revision petition to. the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal at the instance of the petitioner& failed so also the writ F
; petition u/s 227 of the petitioners failed. AU authorities concur-
rently held that Janardhan had become the owner and the Tribunal
was right in determining the price.

The authority u/s 84 held that petitioners were not entitled to
G
retain possession as their occupation was contrary to the provisions
of the Tenancy Act and they had acquired no title to the land by
the purported sale by Ashoklal. The direction for restoring
possession to Janardhan was rightly given. A revision petition and
H
a writ petition to the High Court at the instance.of the petitioners
failed. ·
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (\983} 3 s.c.R.
We find that the High Court was right in rejecting both the
A petitions. These were all the contentions in this appeal and as we.
find no merit in it, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

When this Court issued notice, appellants were directed,,to
deposit Rs. 1500 for costs of respondent. Respondent came here in
rags and urged that he was too poor to engage a counsel. We
B therefore direct that the amount of Rs. 1500 deposited in this Court
by appellants be paid to respondent.

We record our appreciation of assistance to the Court by
Mr. Jitendra Shanna who appeared amicus curie at the reques1t made
c by the Court while granting special leave. He should withdraw .the
amount and take all steps to pay the same to the respondent.

S.R. Appeal dismissed.